Agenda 21 Points

Un Agenda 21 Points

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 and pledged to evaluate progress made in implementing the plan every five years thereafter. President George H.W. Bush was the signatory for the United States.

Although Congress never authorized the implementation of Agenda 21 (as a soft-law policy recommendation — not a treaty — it needs no ratification), in 1993 President Bill Clinton established by Executive Order the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.

Agenda 21 and Sustainable Government are synonymous.

President’s Council on Sustainable Development, said in 1998 that “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… under- taking Local Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as “comprehensive planning”, “growth management” or “smart growth.”

In contrast to the unalienable rights found in America’s founding documents, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are based on a very different idea: rights are granted and rescinded by men.

The Sustainable Development political agenda originates in the founding documents of the United Nations. The myriad of countries represented in the drafting of Agenda 21 have widely divergent forms of government. A point of agreement… for progress to be made in implementing Sustainable Development in the United States, unalienable rights such as the right to property must be eroded, attacked and struck down altogether.

The authors of Agenda 21 have said it will affect every area of life, grouped according to three objectives: Equity, Economy, and Environment (known commonly as “the 3 E’s”).

Implementing Sustainable Development

Equity: using the law to restructure human nature

In order to achieve their objectives, they call for a shift in attitudes, which can be seen in the educational programs developed by its proponents. This is the premise of Sustainable Development.

Economy: the international redistribution of wealth and the creation of public-private partnerships

The Draft Covenant on Environment and Development states in Article 8: “…equity will be achieved through implementation of the international economic order… and through transfers of resources to developing countries…” Basically… if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must be taken from the rich.

In addition to its appeal for the international redistribution of wealth, Sustainable Development is actually restructuring the economy, molding it not on private enterprise, but on public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships bring businesses desiring the protection offered by government’s legalized force together with government agents that want the power that comes with economic control.

Sustainable Development “partnerships” involve some corporations — domestic and multinational — some tax-exempt family foundations, select individuals, and collectivist politicians and their administrations. Only elected politicians are accountable to the public for their actions.

Environment: nature above man

Americans support laws and regulations that are designated to effectively prevent pollution of the air, water, or property of another. Yet it is increasingly clear that Sustainable Development uses the environment simply as the means to promote a political agenda. It is more concerned with restructuring the governmental system of the world’s nations so that all the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective

When Sustainable Development is implemented, ordinary people will be left unprotected from de facto decrees placing nature above man while relegating man to the status of a “biological resource”.

Educating the Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow

Chapter 25 of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21 calls for the need to “enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for ‘sustainability’.”

Stakeholder Councils –Restructuring American Government

Operating within a system of stakeholder councils, organized to give community members a “stake” in the control over property in their neighborhood. The product of a stakeholder council, often called a “consensus statement” or a “vision statement”, is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that is not accountable to the voters.

Why all the effort to gain support for programs few citizens want? The answer to this question lies in the origin of each specific project. Sustainable Development projects are often initiated at the directive of NGOs or non-profit organizations that have — or create — fear over problems that are portrayed as a crisis: development near a riparian corridor, poor water management infrastructure, or too many cars on the freeway are common examples.

Once a problem has been identified, every NGO, non-profit and local government body has a vast stock of Sustainable Development solutions at hand, provided by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Its stated mission is to provide policy recommendations to assist local governments in the implementation of Sustainable Development.

Around the world, ICLEI is re- sponsible for communicating with local special interests to translate international policy objectives into local and regional legislation.19 Every county in America now has Sustainable Development directives guided by federal agencies, NGOs and/or ICLEI.

Over two thousand NGOs are accredited by the United Nations for the purpose of implementing Sustainable Development in America and are given massive tax advantages by the I.R.S. Some of these NGOs are the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the American Planning Association and the National Teachers Association.

The third “leg” of the Sustainable Develop- ment financial insiders — after government and non-profit funding schemes — is a group of tax-exempt family foundations. These include the Rockefeller Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, and Community Foundations.

Smart Growth

The rural land-use plan embodied in the Wildlands Project is inextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth.

As human beings are barred from rural land, there will be a concentration of human activity in urban areas.

Smart Growth, the infrastructure is being created for a post- private property era in which human action is subject to centralized government control.

Sometimes called “comprehensive planning” or “growth management”21, Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population growth and control, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, social justice and education, toxic technology and waste management, transportation modes and air quality, business and economic activity.

Smart Growth policies include:

transportation plans that reduce the freedom of mobility, forcing people to live near where they work and transforming communities into heavily regulated but “self- sufficient” feudalistic “transit villages”.

plans to herd citizens into tax-subsidized, government controlled, mixed-use developments, called “human settlements”. These settlements are sometimes distinguished from one another by how productive or useful the citizens are for society.

heavy restrictions on development in most areas and the promotion of extremely dense development, constructed and managed by government “partners”

Other selected areas.

rations on public services, such as health care, drinking water, and energy resources (and sources).

Eminent domain – Americans have lost federal protection of the unalienable right to the use and enjoyment of private property. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Kelo greatly expanded the use of a government takings power by eliminating the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. This decision allows an increasing proliferation of Public/Private Partnerships. Globalists and their Sustainable Developers needed Kelo in order to destroy the constitutional protection of private property.

Thank you to Freedom Advocates for all you do to combat U.N. Agenda 21. Please visit their site for comprehensive information on Sustainable Development.